"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."- St. John Maximovitch

Well Nektarios, it seems you thought I was trying to insinuate, wrongly might I add, that all converts are stupid. Nowhere did I say this. Nor did I mention anywhere that the entirety of converts all do the same thing. You seem to be generalizing. Nevertheless, you can't deny the fact that there are people who seek constant attention and want someone to tell them how to live their lives. This is what attracts people to cults. I am very familiar with the role of the Spiritual Father in the Orthodox tradition. What I think is wrong when the Spiritual Father goes beyond Spiritual Father, and becomes a person's GURU of sorts.

You dodged all of what I said in my post, Bobby. Here is what you said "I have noticed among some people, converts of course...." My point is that is an entirely untrue thing about the spiritual children of Elders. The majority of their spiritual children are cradles. This entire thing with people crying "Guru cultism" shows just how little they know about Eldership in the Orthodox Church. The Tradition has been alive on the Holy Mountain for over a thousand years, and it has been around even longer than that with the desert Fathers and Mothers. Thus I find it incredibly annoying when someone who isn't even Orthodox pontificates on Elders being guru cultists and a phenomon of converts.

Lol, actually I am considering majoring in Communication/Rhetoric when I return to college, and I also don't see the point (unless that just happens to be something you enjoy doing with your free time). To each their own, I guess.

In England, the first book was called "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone." I wonder if the title had remained the same here in the States whether there would have been such a backlash against the books. You have to admit that changing "philosopher's stone" to "sorcerer's stone" might give Christians pause.

I speculate that they changed the title on the American edition due to "philospher" giving the idea of some musty, arguementative scholars. *I* knew about the Philosopher's Stone and Alchemy from my European history and Science (history of chemistry) readings. I recall reading the (I think it was) Time Life book on the Elements and it had pictures from old alchemy books illustrating early chemists at work and told about how they discovered things while trying to make the Philosophers Stone. But I suspect that that sort of thing isn't taught much or at all. Thus the name change.

Nicholas Flaumel, btw, was a real person, born in 1300 A.D. who did alchemical research and his house in Paris still exists and holds what looks like a nice little restaurant according to their webpage.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

David, I have heard the interviews on "Come Receive the Light" But having just converted a couple of years ago, I've also experienced the backlash against the books ever since the first one came out. The hysteria over the books is something else. There's almost this idea that if you let this book inside your home or touch it, that you are all going to turn into witches or wizards Parents certainly should decide what books are allowed in their home, but maybe they should at least read it before making the decision. I think the kids might have an easier time with the parents' decision if parents did that. Buy the first book and read it and see what you think (it's the shortest).

I must admit, though, that it bothers me some that parents are reading the books to small children. Those books can be quite scary, starting with the first book. However, if someone had read this last book to me when I was a little kid, I'd have had nightmares for a week!:P But for older kids, I don't see a real problem with them. Maybe if there are problems with some parts of the books, when they get to one of those parts, you could discuss with them what you find wrong with it.

Personally, I am an adult Orthodox Christian without an Elder (Staretz, Geron) to guide me. Sometimes, however, I think this seeking after eldership can go too far and result in a cult around the Elder, even if the Elder does not encourage such, IMHO.

I do have my parish priest, who is also my normal father-confessor, however, and I do know a hieromonk and another parish priest fairly well, and if I have questions of a spiritual or moral nature, I raise them with them. But as far as the Harry Potter books, I don't see them as important or influential enough in my own life to even bother my confessor, the hieromonk or the other priest with such trivia.

Hypo-Ortho

My comments aren't directed at Hypo-Ortho, but the entire thread which I find a bit mind-numbing (even the highlight bug debate, though it was mildly amusing)...

Cults can form around anyone, even JK Rowling and Harry Potter. Nobody is above deception in this regard.

My thoughts are that it is strange we readily accept and recommend others to read Harry Potter, but we question the influences of an Orthodox Spiritual Father as cultic.

Why should any Elder actually read Harry Potter to have an opinion about it? If a priest tells us to avoid certain things he perceives as wrong, we shouldn't require him to sample the wrong before we decide whether or not to obey him.

Cradle-O or convert... It doesn't matter, none of us are experienced enough to guide ourselves, and we all need spiritual fathers (in the world or in a monastry).

Cults can form around anyone, even JK Rowling and Harry Potter. Nobody is above deception in this regard.

Or even around the church fathers.

Quote

My thoughts are that it is strange we readily accept and recommend others to read Harry Potter, but we question the influences of an Orthodox Spiritual Father as cultic.

You are conflating two entirely different lines of argument. I spoke of Rowling and Ephraim as allies, not enemies. What others said about cults is not something I understand and have no real comment on; probably it is worth pursuing but I don't see what it has to do with Harry Potter. But that's just me.

Quote

Why should any Elder actually read Harry Potter to have an opinion about it?

Because if he won't read it, he isn't qualified to offer an opinion about its contents. When priests and the like denounce Harry Potter and cannot get the facts about it straight, then they do not speak from the Spirit, for the Spirit does not speak lies. And if they refuse to be corrected, then again, they have proven themselves to be unfit.

It is not a question of whether anyone needs guidance, but rather whether someone else is fitted to do so. Ordination is no guarantee of spiritual wisdom.

I too have noticed among some people, converts of course, that a "cult of elder" does in fact take place

My point all along has been that most people under an Elder are cradles. Also that if you resort to using the word guru to describe Eldership you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. The extreme obedience which you fidn to be guru cultism is in fact very patristic and ancient in Orthodoxy.

As for my SATs what does that have to do with anything? For the record, no I have never taken the SATs or the PSAT.

As for how long I have been Orthodox, longer than you. I also have a lot first hand experience with monasticism and Elders in my short six months since Chrisimation.

The SATs test for reading comprehension, and you seem to be misinterpreting everything I write.

I would tame your pride as it is going to be awfully detrimental to your spiritual life. Your holier than thou attitude is a major turn off. If you somehow think becoming Orthodox is a "race" with other people, you are severely mistaken.

Do you have some statistic to show that the majority of Orthodox under Elders are in fact cradle? Or is this some random fact you spew off the top of your head.

Again, let me help you with some vocabulary.I didn't define Elder to equate with guru cultism.

PEOPLE, that is average lay folks like you and me, often times ASCRIBE to their spiritual father MUCH MORE than they should.

The duty to live your life is YOUR own, and NOT your spiritual father. To run every small decision by your spiritual father seems to indicate to me an unhealthy dependence.

A spiritual father is VERY important, and nowhere did I deny this fact as you seem to wrongly interpret. What IS wrong is when a spiritual father RUNS your life for you.

Look, my combined SAT score was 1510. This discussion of "elders" (which from what I'm gathering means the same thing was what we in the West call "spiritual direction") has gotten rude and more than a bit out of proportion.

I don't know how it works in Orthodoxy but anyone in the West who is a competent director and who finds themself the object of a cultic following by someone whom they are personally directing is going to quash that immediately. Everybody knows this, and I don't think it is generally a problem that way. When the director doesn't have a personal involvement, for example if someone is reading a book, it's much more of an issue, but the author doesn't have that much control in that case anyway.

I've read interviews with Rowling and it's obvious she doesn't intend any such cult and in fact rather wishes the celebrity would back off to a more manageable level. The insinuation that she's trying to corrupt children is silly. In my opinion the accusation that the books encourage interest in the occult is also silly, and this accusation seems to be pushed largely by people who can't be bothered to read the actual text and thus don't have any basis for offering an opinion.

I personally would be reluctant to accept spiritual direction from such a person. If they can't get that straight, how much other malarkey are they pushing in the name of Christ?

You're right, and Elder could never be a cult guru leader. However, we sinners don't always have the perception to discern whether an Elder is true or not, and especially now in America, there are many fakes--other sinners, sometimes sincere, who style themselves monks or priests, but who are wolves.

One must be careful.

Bobby is also right; God gave us free will and discernment. Don't knock that like you seem to be doing.

So I was conflating lines of argument? I thought I was questioning a moment of hypocrisy that this forum seemed to stumble into.

Some on this forum have raised questions regarding the influence of Orthodox Spiritual fathers, but they do not apply the same scrutiny toward the influence of the fictional books they read. They imply that JK Rowling and the influence of her books on Orthodox Christians is to be trusted, while receiving guidance from a pious Orthodox Priest could lead someone into a "cult of guru".

Anyone can be led into deception. I haven't YET commented on the content of the books, nor implicated anyone who has read the books. I just find it ironic that on an Orthodox Christian forum there is less confusion concerning Harry Potter than Orthodox Elders.

Keble's argument isn't hypocritical, but it is absurd. It appears to draw some sort of ecumenical alliance between what IS Orthodox and what has been born out of something entirely UN-Orthodox. JK Rowling is NOT Orthodox, and whatever can be pulled out of her books and decoded into some sort of moral/psuedo-"Christian" message is insignificant.

I've never met Elder Ephraim, but I love the 16+ Orthodox Monastries he's built across America. Personally, I don't understand why questions of a "guru-cult" were raised... It doesn't actually apply in the situation of Elder Ephraim or have any relevence to the current thread. I'd be more than happy to debate the topic of Orthodox Spiritual Fathers on another thread.

Regarding Harry Potter... I believe on this forum we have demonstrated the following:

1) There is nothing Christian or Orthodox about it, but some Christians will go to much trouble to try and justify this work of fiction. They will also stoop to justify their opinions by comparing SAT scores and talking about whether or not they are cradle-Os or converts.2) It has a very deep influence on those who read the books. I would almost say it has a greater impact on adults than children. I haven't met anyone yet who hasn't gotten totally wrapped up in them.3) There is a near cult-like religious following of readers who will undoubtedly buy, read and keep reading all the books. Some have read the 900 page book multiple times since it was released. All in the name of entertainment... How can this be a "good thing?"

If you want to be entertained... we certainly can watch our life tick away, feeding our own fallen imagination while we escape into a realm of JK Rowlings fallen imagination... However, let's not argue about whether or not the books have merit beyond a purely worldly and pagan work of fiction. There really is little difference between JK Rowling, Steven King and/or Robert Jordan.

You are right, I am prideful and it is detrimental to my spiritual life. May the entire board forgive me. You are correct that my lack of education and ignorance prevents me from participating in this discussion very well.

My observations is that at least 90% of the people that see Elder Ephraim are Greek Cradles(keep in mind Elder Ephraim speaks very very little English). The other two priests that give guidance and here confessions are both fluent in English but still see about 70% cradles. On the Holy Mountian the vast majority of people there seekign guidance from an Elder are cradle Greeks (coming from several friends that have stayed extended periods of time on the Holy Mountain). Thus it is not accurate to say it is converts that form the cult of elder.

Anastasios,

That is why nobody should rashly take a spiritual father, IMO. I knew my current SF for about a year before he became my spiritual father. I think there is nothing wrong with taking years to examine the fruit of an Elder, his spirituality etc. to make sure it is good. That is afterall what Elder Joseph did - spend years searching for his spiritual father. This is where free will and discernment come in. But when you have used those to find your elder, it's time to hand them over to die to the world via obedience.

Regarding Harry Potter... I believe on this forum we have demonstrated the following:

1) There is nothing Christian or Orthodox about it, but some Christians will go to much trouble to try and justify this work of fiction. They will also stoop to justify their opinions by comparing SAT scores and talking about whether or not they are cradle-Os or converts.

Nothing of the kind has been demonstrated. I've read the books-- all of them. Nobody else here has even claimed to read the fifth book, though I'm sure some have.

HP is not overtly Christian in the way that many of the Narnia books are, or in the way that parts of the Silmarillion are. It is much more obviously Christian than the Lord of the Rings is.

For my part, the "much trouble" I've gone to has been directed at those whose rejection of the book is ill-founded. It is, after all, in one sense just another book on the shelf, just another story for kids to read. Unless one is prepared to reject fiction in general (and I consider such a position to be too preposterous to argue against) it has to be considered on its merits. Those who attack it simply on the basis of the words "magic" and "witchcraft" do so out of ignorance and something approaching superstition.

Quote

2) It has a very deep influence on those who read the books. I would almost say it has a greater impact on adults than children. I haven't met anyone yet who hasn't gotten totally wrapped up in them.

Well, there's impact, and there's impact. People get wrapped up in it because (at least on one crucial level) it is well-written. It's hardly perfect, but it is a very enjoyable read.

As far as the impact on adults is concerned: it is a story which is enjoyable enough for adults, and indeed, the successive books have been written on more and more of an adult level. But also, there is the issue of just getting kids to read at all. I know people who write childrens' and YA books, and who know some of what goes on in the industry. Before HP, the last big thing was the Goosebumps series, which by all accounts was not great literature. Yet they sold and sold. Then all of a sudden, in one month sales dropped by something like a factor of ten. It nearly put Scholastic out of business. It became apparent that people were buying the books, but they weren't reading them.

Getting boys to read books has been a battle for years. So when something like HP comes along that boys really want to read, adults get excited about it.

Quote

3) There is a near cult-like religious following of readers who will undoubtedly buy, read and keep reading all the books. Some have read the 900 page book multiple times since it was released. All in the name of entertainment... How can this be a "good thing?"

It is not near cult-like, and it is not religious in this sense. It is just the normal course of celebrity. It is perfectly ordinary to re-read books; almost any book I like I will re-read, just because that's the way I read. Plenty of people are that way, and plenty of other people never read anything more than once. If this difference means something, it doesn't mean anything about Rowling or the HP books.

Quote

If you want to be entertained... we certainly can watch our life tick away, feeding our own fallen imagination while we escape into a realm of JK Rowlings fallen imagination... However, let's not argue about whether or not the books have merit beyond a purely worldly and pagan work of fiction. There really is little difference between JK Rowling, Steven King and/or Robert Jordan.

Or between JK Rowling and Dostoevsky, if it comes to that. Or Lewis, or Tolkien, or Charles Williams, or George Macdonald, or.........

... or what we are doing now.

This is after all a kind of entertainment; we will see that if we are honest with ourselves. I refuse to even consider the notion that entertainment is of itself sinful and unhealthy. It is a basic human need. We were placed first in a garden, a place of delights, in its way a great entertainment.

Surely some entertainments are good, and some are bad, and even those that are good can end up as indulgences. But which are good and which are not depends upon their nature, and in the case of books, their actual contents. Those who make a case for the Christian morality in HP make good arguments and base them on the real books; those who say "Ooooh! Magic! Nasty!" make poor arguments out of ignorance. To speak the Spirit, you have to speak the truth.

So far I'm the only person who has actually read the book and posted a review. If anyone else would like to post an actual review of the book, I'd be interested in seeing it. The discussion of eldership is interesting in its own right but it ceased to have anything to do with HP almost immediately. The boilerplate disapproval isn't interesting, but predictable and not grounded in anything like reality. Anyone who thinks that HP is basically like Stephen King novels hasn't read both of them.

Another thing to keep in mind. Like someone (Bobby) already pointed out, spiritual fathers are fallen human beings as well. My parish priest's spiritual father of many years left the OCA (felt the OCA was too ecumenical) and joined HOCNA. This caused my priest much grief and I'm pretty sure he has selected a new spiritual father. I'm sure some on this board will think there was nothing wrong with what his spiritual father did, but I think most Orthodox would find it distressing. The point: your spritual father can stray as well, regardless of how careful you might have been in selecting him.

Also, lay people are not as strictly accoutable to their spiritual father as monks are. Monks are accountable to their spiritual father for every thought and action, which they must confess to him. I am aware that some jurisdictions have had problems with spiritual fathers who were too intrusive into their spiritual children's lives (who were laypeople) and had to be disciplined. The temptation for power is a strong one for all of us.

This is beside the point. We each have our priest/spiritual father and we are accountable to him. Most priests/spiritual fathers will not interfere with someone else's spiritual child. It's hard enough to follow one person's advice but when you have two people giving advice (especially if they are giving conflicting advice), it can be almost impossible. Personally, I'd be much more likely to ask my priest/spiritual father about which Orthodox books to read, since I know that trying things that are beyond your ability are very dangerous. There are several works that my priest has told me not to read yet (The Philokalia and The Ladder are two of them). Personally, I think my priest is much more concerned about this than what works of fiction I read.

If the Church is a hospital of souls, it's important to find a good doctor to be your spiritual father. Certainly, we are all fallen, but there are some who are purified or trying to be purified... Some may even be illumined... My spiritual father isn't a monk, he's a married priest who is the chaplain of a monastry. He lives very piously and tries to teach us moderation in all things. I have not asked him about Harry Potter, but I know in similar circumstances he hasn't given blessing to read such things. The monastry is also one of Elder Ephraim's.

From my understanding, there are priests who primarily listen to confession and read the prayer. The sins are forgiven, but remedy is incomplete. They may or may not make a few small recommendations when asked. It's likely that their own spiritual father tells them not to offer too many suggestions to those who come for confession, because they also may be "doctors-in-training".

There are priests who spend more time with their spiritual child, and who not only do the above... but may prescribe a rule of prayer, prostrations, how strictly to fast and determine if it's blessed for you to take communion (apply penance).

Further, there are priests who are illumined and may be able to see into your very soul (these are quite rare). The biographies on the Fathers of Optina offer a very good view into the lives of such Elders.

I believe that spiritual fathers who are blessed by their own spiritual fathers to play a larger role in the life of their spiritual child, are not doing this for power or cult status. We don't worry so much about doctors who perform surgeries, whether or not they have some sort of "god-complex" even though there have been doctors on TV who resemble this. Perhaps we should worry about this more.

Further, I believe these concerns are genuine, but prove only one thing to me. That we, as spiritual children, find it difficult to "die to self" and out of our pride, we generally cling to excuses that are valid, but might not apply in all circumstances. My unsolicited advice on the subject: Find a good spiritual father and most of your concerns will disappear (confess the other concerns).

SRENALDS

PS. I apologize for some of my insensitive comments earlier. Generally, your concerns are valid, but they do not apply in all cases. My thoughts on HP still stand, but the way I spoke was abrasive. I shouldn't go back and re-read my posts... I'll have to apologize for every one.

If the Church is a hospital of souls, it's important to find a good doctor to be your spiritual father. Certainly, we are all fallen, but there are some who are purified or trying to be purified... Some may even be illumined... My spiritual father isn't a monk, he's a married priest who is the chaplain of a monastry. He lives very piously and tries to teach us moderation in all things. I have not asked him about Harry Potter, but I know in similar circumstances he hasn't given blessing to read such things. The monastry is also one of Elder Ephraim's.

So tell me-- what are these "similar cicumstances"? What you are giving me at the moment is not your director's opinion of HP, but yours. In a sense, you are presuming yourself to give direction.

Which might be OK. But if you don't actually know the books, then it isn't OK.

Have I ever said anything other than, "I wouldn't read HP?" I gave my reasons for not reading HP, but I never presumed to say that others should or shouldn't read HP. I think it's best if we NOT read HP... I disagree firmly with your opinion about "delights" and "entertainments" in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were not "fallen" and did not have the same sort of need for modern entertainments that we currently call "delights". Our imaginations are fallen... Feeding our imagination is not exactly the best way toward deification. Neither would be eating lots of food, sleeping too much, or doing a whole lot of things that some might consider "delights"... most of all me. Notice that these things aren't all-together bad, but they can be.

We can blow much wind at this debate, but I believe those who say HP is evil do not need to dig too deeply in order to find what they are looking for.

Let's compare just one thing... I don't have much time... This will be short.

JRR Tolkien & CS Lewis versus HP...

JRRT & CS both used magical elements in their books... BUT, it was the bad guys who were considered witches and wizards... There was no glorification of magic in itself. From my memory, those who were given powers (good and evil) were created that way, with the power...

HP in it's own humanistic way takes a child and leads him through an education in the black arts...

I have run out of time... This is a shabby post, but it will have to do.

SRENALDS

PS. Regarding what my Father-Confessor has and hasn't said to me is off limits for this board and anyone. I was speaking in generalities... He is a father of a monastry that Elder Ephraim started, so if Elder Ephraim is against HP I doubt my spiritual father would be willing to let me read it. That is all I said. You'd like to turn this argument away from HP and into some criticism of spiritual fathers, but that's inappropriate. I haven't actually heard an adequate defense of HP other than "it's entertaining" and may have a few moral lessons...

You have repeatedly referred to "fallen imaginations". Are you thus saying that human imaginations are to be quashed or ignored?

Quote

Feeding our imagination is not exactly the best way toward deification. Neither would be eating lots of food, sleeping too much, or doing a whole lot of things that some might consider "delights"... most of all me. Notice that these things aren't all-together bad, but they can be.

Or they can be good, depending on what is given.

Quote

We can blow much wind at this debate, but I believe those who say HP is evil do not need to dig too deeply in order to find what they are looking for.

Iindeed, many can find things which are not present at all in books, if they look hard enough and do not consider there could be other things meant. :- I have seen an anti-Harry Potter website that purports to show all the "evil" bits and real deep meanings. It was rubbish in that they knew nothing of basic history, literature, or culture that Rowling was drawing from. An example: Nicholas Flaumel is citing has having celebrated his "Six hundred and sixty fifth birthday" the year before the first book takes place. Thus he is... <omnious chords> Six hundred and sixty-six at some point. Well, by golly, Nicholas Flaumel was a real person who lived in Paris and did alchemical studies. He was born in 1300 AD. The first book was published in 1997, thus being written and edited in 1996... do the math. Sometimes a number is just a number.

Quote

Let's compare just one thing... I don't have much time... This will be short.

JRR Tolkien & CS Lewis versus HP...

JRRT & CS both used magical elements in their books... BUT, it was the bad guys who were considered witches and wizards... There was no glorification of magic in itself. From my memory, those who were given powers (good and evil) were created that way, with the power...

Ummm, Gandalf was a wizard (not human though) and one of the Good Guys. Galadriel didn't maintain the safety of Lothlorien by looking good, she also had magic, albeit strengthened and focused through one of the Three Elven Rings another one on the side of Good. It is not the magic that marked who was Evil but the desire to have Power and to rule all. (Saruman, Sauron etc.) In essense Superbia or Pride... "I will rule, none will rule me." Sauron and Saruman were initially created as Good by Eru (The One, i.e. God.) See The Silmarillion and other Tolkien works. Their wills and choices were what were/helped them become Evil. Oddly enough just like in the Harry Potter books in which it is the Pride and the lust for power that leads characters (Voldamort, Lucius Malfoy etc.) to Evil.

Ebor

edited for typos

« Last Edit: July 08, 2003, 04:54:37 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I disagree firmly with your opinion about "delights" and "entertainments" in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were not "fallen" and did not have the same sort of need for modern entertainments that we currently call "delights".

I have serious problems with this whole passage. It seems to be saying that entertainment itself is basically bad.

Books and stories, after all, aren't modern. Neither is music, or theater, or gardens for that matter. To say that all these things are intrinsically bad as entertainment is a theological speculation beyond justification. Frankly, it sounds monkish.

Quote

JRRT & CS both used magical elements in their books... BUT, it was the bad guys who were considered witches and wizards... There was no glorification of magic in itself. From my memory, those who were given powers (good and evil) were created that way, with the power...

If you will read Harry Potter, you will find it is the same way with him. One does not become a wizard/witch in his world by learning, but by birth. Some have the ability, and some do not. (And indeed, some have it though their parents do not, and occaisionally some do not have it though their parents do.)

Quote

HP in it's own humanistic way takes a child and leads him through an education in the black arts...

No. You appear to speak out of ignorance.

Harry is born with the ability to do magic-- indeed, before he goes to Hogwarts he has on occaision done magic acts without being aware of it (well, he's aware that something strange has happened, but he doesn't know why). Magic school, if you'll read the books, is just like regular school. Learning magic is just like learning music: a mixture of the practical, the historical, and the theoretical.

Rowling is a well-educated woman and her details, for the most part, come from history. But her magic is not the "black arts" of history. It's just something that some people can do. Indeed, one course of study is "Defense against the dark arts".

This seems like a lot off trouble to go through over a bunch of children's books. But to forbid something is to turn it into a temptation. And when the tempted child reads the books and finds out that they are not as has been represented, those who told him wrongly about the books are discredited.

By the way, in Lewis's greatest book, a pagan god makes an on-screen appearance. What of that?

:JRRT & CS both used magical elements in their books... BUT, it was the bad guys who were considered witches and wizards.:

Ebor has responded with regard to JRRT. As for CS . . .

The four children are given "magical" gifts in _Lion_. The White Witch claims Edmund on the basis of the _Deep Magic_ of the "Emperor" (basically an analogy for the Law of God!) and Aslan defeats her on the basis of the "Deeper Magic from before the Dawn of Time."

In Prince Caspian, the benevolent Doctor Cornelius is a white magician, though not a terribly powerful one. His magic is clearly seen as different from the black magic Nicabrik (I think I have the spelling wrong--shame on me!) wants to use to call up the White Witch. Actually, I could quite easily see Doctor Cornelius as a professor at Hogwarts. Perhaps Defense against the Dark Arts. He may not be the most qualified, but considering some of the failures they've had in the past . . . . but I digress.

In Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the magician Coriakin (spelling again? I really need to reread the books for the 20th time or whatever; it's clearly been too long) turns out to be a benevolent character who was once a star and is now serving some sort of penance in obedience to Aslan.

Let me start by saying... I knew it was a shoddy post because I was at work and didn't have a whole lot of time to frame the discussion. Now with a baby crying, I doubt this one will be much better.

As for our "fallen imaginations"... I recommend the books "Illness and Cure of the Soul in Orthodox Tradition" and "Orthodox Psychotherapy" both by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlahos... I can't possibly argue this point here nor do I believe it would benefit. Those books go into great detail about what the soul is and how it is cured. You'd do better reading them instead of trying to get something understandable out of me. Perhaps I'll dig up some quotes at a later time.

I will say that the books cover the soul in detail, and how the imagination works on the soul, how fantasy/thoughts can adversly affect the soul and consequently the mind. Anyway, they are brilliant books... Not exactly light-reading.

As for Tolkien... Gandalf and Saruman were both Istari... They weren't wizards. They were "called" wizards by common folk who didn't know what else to call them, but it is evident they weren't wizards. They are created beings, created with special powers (sort of like angels, but also unlike them). The movies failed to capture this. I'm not condoning people read Tolkien... I wish I hadn't spent so much of my youth on this.

Some of CS Lewis' characters have powers, but their powers are given to them by Aslan. The reference to "deep magic" and "deeper magic" are coincidental to the story. These terms are also used to refer to the Law of God (as you said before). Even those who have magical powers, like the one you mention in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, are all gifts given to them either by Aslan or God. The source of all gifts is clearly represented and hard to ignore.

The problem with JK Rowling is not that the word "magic" is used, but that the entire basis of the story is that a boy is studying to be a warlock. I can't see how this is defensible in the name of entertainment. I'll repeat what I said before... There is no difference between JK Rowling, Steven King or Robert Jordan... Those who attempt to "conjure" a Christian message are being dishonest with themselves.

If you want to say you enjoy the story of HP because it's entertaining, I have no problem with that. If you want to say these stories somehow related to traditional Orthodox Christianity, or that you should trust JK Rowling as much as a pious Orthodox spiritual father, or that reading such a book is actually good for Christians... then I will be forced to write long and tedious posts to debate such issues.

SRENALDS

PS. I believe the following regarding entertainment: Dependence on entertainment is bad... Love of entertainment is bad... I'm the worst one on this board, for sure.

The problem with JK Rowling is not that the word "magic" is used, but that the entire basis of the story is that a boy is studying to be a warlock. I can't see how this is defensible in the name of entertainment. I'll repeat what I said before... There is no difference between JK Rowling, Steven King or Robert Jordan... Those who attempt to "conjure" a Christian message are being dishonest with themselves.

OK, let's try it one more time.

Harry Potter isn't studying to be a warlock.

At least not the way the wiccans and such talk about it, or the way you seem to be saying here. Harry does not become a wizard by study. He is born a wizard. That is what it says. Magic, in Rowling's books, is simply a talent that some people have. It has no intrinsic moral meaning.

I've not read any Robert Jordan, so I won't pretend to be competent to have any opinion on his books. I have read a little Steven King. And he's not writing in the same genre. Rowling's books, like very many kid's books (and like virtually all YA books) are books of moral instruction. Magic, in her books, is just a framework. Indeed, I have seen interviews in which she has gotten rather irritated at the focus on the magic. Magic isn't real, she says. My wife remembers years ago when Marion Zimmer Bradley was getting similarly irritated when people (largely young women) decided that the "magic" that appears in her Darkover stories was "real" (and started acting it out).

This topic was locked. I don't know why exactly, and so I'm going to go out on a limb and unlock it.

The argument that one cannot intelligently and accurately say something about a book without having read it first seems true enough. I know I haven't read HP; I have enough to read without it, and such things just don't interest me, and quite frankly, I am not sure why so many chase after HP to the extent that it seems to be pop culture madness rather than great literature. But I don't pretend to be an authority on it.

On the other hand, I wonder how absolute this is. Can a person take issue with a book without having read it and not come across as talking outside of both sides of one's mouth? Depending on the reason, I think one could make that kind of case. Certainly, I think that, at the very least, some would say it is always better to err on the side of caution when discouraging the reading of HP.

So, I'm opening up the thread again so that interested people can discuss these things. But I want to see the discussion carried out in a civil manner. In some posts, snide comments seem to be made, and there are hints of sarcasm. Surely, one can make an intelligent argument either way without resorting to this sort of thing. If I begin to see that this is impossible, I will not hesitate to lock it again. Thanks.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

This topic was locked. I don't know why exactly, and so I'm going to go out on a limb and unlock it.

The argument that one cannot intelligently and accurately say something about a book without having read it first seems true enough. I know I haven't read HP; I have enough to read without it, and such things just don't interest me, and quite frankly, I am not sure why so many chase after HP to the extent that it seems to be pop culture madness rather than great literature. But I don't pretend to be an authority on it.

On the other hand, I wonder how absolute this is. Can a person take issue with a book without having read it and not come across as talking outside of both sides of one's mouth? Depending on the reason, I think one could make that kind of case. Certainly, I think that, at the very least, some would say it is always better to err on the side of caution when discouraging the reading of HP.

So, I'm opening up the thread again so that interested people can discuss these things. But I want to see the discussion carried out in a civil manner. In some posts, snide comments seem to be made, and there are hints of sarcasm. Surely, one can make an intelligent argument either way without resorting to this sort of thing. If I begin to see that this is impossible, I will not hesitate to lock it again. Thanks.

Thank you, Mor.

I tried to post twice and first timed out then had a page error. I'll try again when the daily storm passes.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I finished the book last Monday, and found it quite interesting. Rowling's writing has improved from leaps and bounds from Goblet of Fire. It was nice to see The Weasley family as the center of attention for many parts of the book.

Although you have to examine the text quite scrupulously to find explicit Christian content, I think Rowling has done a good job illustrating the Deus Machina that life truly is. While I wouldn't put her works on the same level as Lewis or Tolkien(time will tell I guess, perhaps it is my own chronological snobbery) I do think they are very much elevated over most "pulp" fiction. Go read some Roger Zelany, R.A. Salvatore, or even Michael Crichton and see if you can find anything on the level of the Harry Potter books spiritually.

They're not Orthodox, they're not the best things I could be reading, but they are very good for what they are, and I think at least theoretically they might plant a seed in what is otherwise barren rock. Of course studying the fathers is more important for us, but for many people this (sadly) is the most in-depth they get in spiritual literature. As such I think we should honor what good is there while also pointing out the shortcomings.

Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."-Yazid Ibrahim

The enlarging of the Weasleys is indeed a good part of the book, David, and not just for Fred and George. The parents dealing with Percy's cutting himself off from the rest of the family is well depicted and Mrs. Weasley's greatest fear is Real. It's a 2 parent family with 7 children who love each other. What a revolutionary idea.

The beaurocracy of the Ministry of Magic and the machinations seem to show that Rowling has a good handle on the temptations that power and its abuses have on the banal level, not just the Great Evil of Voldamort.

Ebor

« Last Edit: July 11, 2003, 12:21:14 AM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Just a bit of background that I tried to post as last night's thunderstorm came through (No, we didn't get any tornado warnings in our area.)

The first couple of Harry Potter books came out quietly and were mostly popularized by children and parents finding a good story that had plot and characterization. This was during a low point in alot of children's and YA (Young Adult) literature. "Goosebumps" and other series were churned out without much real "meat" as it were. More like cotton candy for the brain.

There was also alot of concern about a lowering of reading abilities particularly amoung boys. And the HP books had a boy as the main character. They showed up in the right place at the right time.

Then the marketers and movies and all noticed that the books were popular and decided they needed to get on the cart. Thus the publicity, the newspaper stories showing children reading. The films and toys etc.

Even with all this, the books can stand on their own merits. Kids don't read them because it was a movie. They want the book. There are 2 boys I know with reading difficulties. One with a slight disability and one in the Autism-Asperger's Spectrum. Both disliked reading unless it was in a narrow area of interest (Sports, robots.)

Both were looking forward, 3 weeks ago, to diving into an 870 page novel. And along with that they are reading about friendship, courage, making the right choices, loyalty and other good things.,

Ebor

(edited for missed words. Sometimes I think faster then I can type)

« Last Edit: July 11, 2003, 12:19:22 AM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I feel (just a little) bad posting in this section since I've never read a HP book and don't really plan too. But, since I played AD&D when I was little (and am presently stuck in the middle of a computer game that I haven't touched in over a year), I've read dozens of Forgotten Realms and a few Dragonlance books. Although I know he writes more than just Forgotten Realms (I own around 40 of those), I keep hearing R.A. Salvotore's name popping up. Is he really making a name for himself? Is he considered a decent author? I personally like his books (especially the Dark Elf ones), but am curious what others think.